SpikeStrip:staplermofo: For the love of the absence of a higher power, would you farkmothers trim your farkingmother quotes down?

what's that? another colloquialism for vagina?

I like long quotes and I cannot lieYou other farkers can't denyThat when a troll walks inwith an itty-bitty brain and a long quote in your faceyou get sprung, wanna pull out your tough'Cause you notice that post was stuffed

Niveras:Lusiphur: Can you be considered an "islamaphobe" if you simply hate religion? Wouldn't that just be a religiophobe?

His entire point was that the 'new atheists' specifically single out Islam as an order of magnitude worse than the 'run of the mill evil' perpetrated by religion in general. So yes, it is possible to have an irrational fear for a specific subset belonging to a group that you decry, ostensibly for rational reasons. You can hate "bugs," because in your experience they are pests and in rare instances carry disease and are generally irritating. At the same time, you can be an arachnophobe. This doesn't make you a "bugophobe."

.

As far as defining the "good", society itself can do that. It can do it a lot better than the otherwise immutable rules handed down from a divine source. You don't need a threat of everlasting hell to force a kid to do his chores (or not kill people). Secular aesops (for example, Dr Seuss) can teach morality without ever deliberately invoking supreme beings (though I'm sure arguments would be made that they contain religious imagery, because people tend to look for it even where it is not intended). Likewise, as far as adults are concerned, punishment by human law would serve just as well as hell.

That is, of course, provided that the concept of an everlasting and a "true religion" can be purged from the public belief. Which is not likely to happen. You cannot destroy religion. If it were possible, it is likely that the concept of a religious belief would never have developed. We create answers for things we cannot see or understand - it's how we survived. The best you can hope for is to disconnect the religious belief from the secular, physical life. I don't care what you believe as long as you're not trying to influence the lives of others based on irrational arguments.

I should add that, yes, for 90% of believers, this is how they live anyway. That last 10%, though. Holy shiatballs.

staplermofo:In the same way, if you're afraid of radical muslim terrorists blowing up your face and your limited exposure to muslims prevents you from telling them from harmless muslims, it's also not a phobia.

It isnt a phobia, youre right. Its ignorance. Then again, religion does make some people go full retard. Thats one of two things religion is good for. the other is killing people

The author is not a very good atheist if he does not understand why an atheist should behave morally or ethically without the constructs an organized religion would provide a person. With or without religious frameworks, and barring any crippling brain or psychological trauma, one determines right and wrong through a combination of experience, instruction and thoughtful consideration, and may be subjected to correction by social interaction or norms. And even if one has well-developed, socially acceptable sense of right and wrong, it's no guarantee that person won't, in a moment of weakness, act like a douche. Even Jesus debated with the elders of the church (friggin' uppity peasant know-it-all. who does he think he is? the son of God?).

Thanks to atheism, Sadism and living for the moment is AOK!There is no God, and no need to worry about retribution after you die, as there is no afterlife, no Heaven or hell.Everything is of man, so you can make your own rules to live and die by.

The Snow Dog:FTA: " Like a lot of atheists, I read a bunch of books about atheism and the shortcomings of religion and smirked at the inconsistencies contained in the Bible and Christianity's other texts." [The books arguing against Christianity were] "stuff written by men-almost always men, almost always white men, not that that matters."

Wait, whatnow? Maybe that's because you're white. If you were an atheist born in Cairo or Calcutta or Peking your statement would probably not hold true.

Maybe. Has anybody ever done a study showing what percentage of published atheists are white, what percentage are male, and how that compares to, say, all published authors?

It does kind of seem like most "movement atheists" who blog (or write books, or tweet) in English about being atheist are white males, but I'm not aware of any hard statistics that back up that perception.

Perhaps someone who's actually been to an atheist convention would care to comment on how many people there were nonwhite or female?

As an atheist my level of animosity towards a particular religion depends on how repugnant that religion is.

For instance, I think Jainism is silly but if I pay it no mind.

Islam on the other hand is currently the most repugnant religion on the planet and that's saying a lot considering they have to compete with the Catholic church for that title.

But listening to atheists honk about Islamophobia is nothing new as for a long while there it boggled my damn mind how quickly they would start screaming what a terrible hateful person you were for giving Islam the same amount of scorn as Christianity. This seems to be subsiding but you can be sure as hell the moment an atheist calls Islam out for what it actually is "Waaah! Islamophobia!"

I expect that from the Muslims. I don't expect that from non-Muslims.

Islam deserves to be viewed with a greater level of contempt than fundamental Christianity. As I'm fond of telling people who like to preach to me about all the non-violent Muslims... That's all well and good... That only makes them as bad as the Christians. Islam is the religion of perpetual offense on a hair trigger that goes off violently every time it gets a chance and as bad as Christians are I don't see them engaged in world wide violent riots over unflattering pictures of Jesus. I'm not even talking about the terrorism here although I certainly could. Genital mutilation isn't happening in some far off corner of crazy land, it's happening in England. Women being treated like live stock? Sharia law being given special treatment? Animals in slaughter houses suffering needlessly to satisfy religious zealots? Again, not in some far off crazy land, these things happen in Europe.

Islamophobia? If such a thing actually existed then the world could use a lot more of it.

Islam deserves to be singled out, as it represents a much greater threat to the core tenets of western civilization than any other religion / group that exists today. It isn't just the fringe either - mainstream Islam is the problem. When upwards of 75% of the people in large, populous Muslim countries believe that the punishment for leaving Islam should be death - that is a problem.

I wish more in the west would stop being apologists and start calling out these people for the danger their beliefs present.

I don't hate religions. I think religions are a great tool to influence and suppress the uneducated masses. Of course that means I admire the religion leaders for their ingenuity and just see every other religious person as brainwashed or plain stupid. To believe some of the core ideas of most mainstream religions you have to be unable of scientific or logical thinking or just of thinking at all.

Seems to me Harris is just following the Hitchens mold in that criticizing Islam is a sure-fire way to piss off the sort of people that would do for you what they did to Rushdie. Nothing earns you points like having a fatwa issued against you. And it doesn't hurt your chances with the ladies, either.

With that said, I think Greenwald does a pretty decent job of explaining things in the link provided within the article.

bullsballs:Thanks to atheism, Sadism and living for the moment is AOK!

Atheism did that? Here I was thinking it was cola advertisements.

bullsballs:There is no God, and no need to worry about retribution after you die, as there is no afterlife, no Heaven or hell.

Which means that we must take greater care of our legacy and truly cherish our time here on Earth as opposed to counting on spending eternity in some blissful state, fully removed from our actions and decisions.

bullsballs:Everything is of man, so you can make your own rules to live and die by.

Our rules are coded into the very fabric of our cultural and societal norms. Sure you can try living by your own set, but anything that's too far outside the boundaries of acceptable behaviour (such as say, stabbing every 3rd person you meet with a sharpened popsicle stick) will result in serious negative consequences.

Author fail: What I'm wondering, though, is what atheism puts in place of that morality and framework that religions provide. You don't need God to be a good person, but you do need some way of differentiating good acts from bad, virtue from evil.

Religions do not provide morality and framework. All they provide is a bunch of arbitrary (and often silly / barbaric) laws that the unthinking worshipers are supposed to follow. Real morality, such as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not mooch thine neighbor's resources," is an evolved feature of our species.

I can only really speak for myself on this since there is no "atheist handbook of rules" that we all follow... As I see it, I don't care what religion someone is. I consider all religions on equal footing when it comes to the believing in strange and unprovable things, but as long as religious people aren't harming anyone else, it really makes no difference to me what they believe. However, when religion starts leading someone to do harm to others... I have a problem with it.

And that's about it... Do harm to others in the name of your religious beliefs and I'll hold you and the religion that taught you the act that was responsible.

Don't want me to dislike you or your religious beliefs? Don't do other people harm. It's really that simple.

Dawkins, for one, has a habit of being oddly deferential when the subject of Islam comes up, and it's likely because he'd rather not get shot.

And this is NOT because all Muslims are crazy or murderous. But it only takes a small percentage of hard-core crazies before one starts to think that there's an easier living to be made attacking Christianity and Judaism. I would bet large sums of money that Dawkins knows the name Theo Van Gogh, and would prefer not to share Van Gogh's fate.

dfxdeimos:Islam deserves to be singled out, as it represents a much greater threat to the core tenets of western civilization than any other religion / group that exists today.

The GOP bible-thumpers say hi.

It isn't just the fringe either - mainstream Islam is the problem. When upwards of 75% of the people in large, populous Muslim countries believe that the punishment for leaving Islam should be death - that is a problem.

In some large, populous muslim countries. In others, not so much.

I wish more in the west would stop being apologists and start calling out these people for the danger their beliefs present.

Most muslims are nothing like the fire-breathing boogy-men the far right are trying to make them out to be. Islam is just another stupid religion. One of many. Yes, islam has the potential for violence, but so does any other religion. No exceptions.

Every time I meet someone and think "Wow, this person is spiteful, hateful, and/or self-centered asshat", I ask them about their faith...every time I have asked I find they are either agnostic or atheist.

I will say this about agnostics and atheists...you folks are consistent.

This is a classic example of two liberal concepts coming into conflict with each other. On the one hand, you have the classical liberals who want to promote secularism in the world, and on the other you have the social justice set who hate anything that smells like cultural relativism and don't think white people should be allowed to assess non-European cultures. People aren't sure which one should win out, so they have to pick a side.

Thankfully, most of them are picking the former, since the kind of people who go with the latter in a situation like this are idiots.

Divinegrace:Every time I meet someone and think "Wow, this person is spiteful, hateful, and/or self-centered asshat", I ask them about their faith...every time I have asked I find they are either agnostic or atheist.

I will say this about agnostics and atheists...you folks are consistent.

ciberido:The Snow Dog: FTA: " Like a lot of atheists, I read a bunch of books about atheism and the shortcomings of religion and smirked at the inconsistencies contained in the Bible and Christianity's other texts." [The books arguing against Christianity were] "stuff written by men-almost always men, almost always white men, not that that matters."

Wait, whatnow? Maybe that's because you're white. If you were an atheist born in Cairo or Calcutta or Peking your statement would probably not hold true.

Maybe. Has anybody ever done a study showing what percentage of published atheists are white, what percentage are male, and how that compares to, say, all published authors?

It does kind of seem like most "movement atheists" who blog (or write books, or tweet) in English about being atheist are white males, but I'm not aware of any hard statistics that back up that perception.

They are not just white males. They are often rich white males of influence. We aren't talking about Cletus from some backwoods trailer park from Alabama but wealthy, professors from world renowned universities. Men of some significant power.

mekki:ciberido: The Snow Dog: FTA: " Like a lot of atheists, I read a bunch of books about atheism and the shortcomings of religion and smirked at the inconsistencies contained in the Bible and Christianity's other texts." [The books arguing against Christianity were] "stuff written by men-almost always men, almost always white men, not that that matters."

Wait, whatnow? Maybe that's because you're white. If you were an atheist born in Cairo or Calcutta or Peking your statement would probably not hold true.

Maybe. Has anybody ever done a study showing what percentage of published atheists are white, what percentage are male, and how that compares to, say, all published authors?

It does kind of seem like most "movement atheists" who blog (or write books, or tweet) in English about being atheist are white males, but I'm not aware of any hard statistics that back up that perception.

They are not just white males. They are often rich white males of influence. We aren't talking about Cletus from some backwoods trailer park from Alabama but wealthy, professors from world renowned universities. Men of some significant power.

Well, if Bubba-Jos goth girlfriend wrote a book about how just like, people who believe in stuff is like just so totally bogus, it's not exactly going to sell well to this particular target audience, is it? So the publishing houses invented Dawkins and Harris and pretend like they wrote it instead.

Divinegrace:Every time I meet someone and think "Wow, this person is spiteful, hateful, and/or self-centered asshat", I ask them about their faith...every time I have asked I find they are either agnostic or atheist.

I will say this about agnostics and atheists...you folks are consistent.

Have you considered the possibility that you're the only asshole involved here? You know - Occam's Razor and all that.